D&D 5E Bend Luck unusable for self?

[Dragongrief]

If you'd like an "in world" reasoning for why it only affects other characters/creatures, here goes:

*Bend Luck requires focus.
*If you are actively engaged in an activity (casting a spell, shooting a crossbow, climbing a wall, etc.), you don't have enough focus to spare until after the task is complete, which makes it too late to bend your own luck.
*You CAN take advantage of lowering your opponent's saving through because you are done focusing on casting the spell by the time they make their save, so you shift your focus to Bending their Luck.

I do agree that it is unlikely to make much of a balance change if the sorcerer is allowed target themself, but it does seem the less optimal choice when Tides of Chaos is available.

 

[Pauper]

Notice how much less ambiguous the syntax is there? How *clear* it is that the Bard is *excluded*? This is more typical of exclusionary language used in the rule books.

I don't think this is a winning line of argument -- contrast Bardic Inspiration with the text for the Divination Wizard's Portent ability:

"You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling rolls." (emphasis mine)

Where the rules intend that you can use an ability on yourself, they will say so explicitly, as they do with this ability. More to the point, since you are a 'creature you can see', if the designers intended that phrase to indicate any non-invisible creature (including yourself), then there's no reason to include 'you' in the text -- they could simply have left it as "check made by a creature you can see".

Honestly, I don't think the designers of 5e go into that much thought when describing their abilities -- they certainly don't keyword or otherwise make general definitional rules about how abliities work outside of abilities that already have a tradition of definition in other editions (spell components, for instance). Plus, the intent of the wording of Bend Luck does seem to imply that it's an ability like Bardic Inspiration that is meant to be used to benefit the character's allies or hinder the character's enemies, which increases the degree of interactivity between characters in a party. Allowing Bend Luck to be used on the sorcerer's own rolls simply means that most sorcerers will use the ability on their own rolls rather than aiding other party members. As a DM, I'm OK with ruling that Bend Luck can't be used to benefit the sorcerers rolls.

--
Pauper

 

[Gadget]

The ability is very clearly worded and leaves little room for interpretation, IMHO. If you want some poorly worded abilities that are open to interpretation where WOTC has come out with an official "Here's what we meant explanation" that seems to contradict the most logical interpretation of what the wrote, I give you: The many Spells in the PHB!

 

[cooperjer]

2) Is it, perchance, just "unfortunate" syntax where the author failed to state the obvious (that the Sorcerer could bend his own luck) in lieu of highlighting that the Sorcerer can also bend the luck of *another* creature they can see?

You are getting at the core of how Jeremy Crawford edits books. He prefers to have more images than words if the book looks better. He'll rely on "common use" of words in language without many clarifiers to help keep the word count down if needed. Both he and Mearls have indicated in the past that game design is uses language as a code; therefore, as in code there are several ways to accomplish the same goal with fewer characters. They will use the same process to make a "clear" set of rules. Keep in mind the class features or spells in the book do nothing more and nothing less than is in the text.

Thus when I want to interact with another piece of cake, this generally would mean not the cake that I currently have.

 

[Full Bleed]

I don't think this is a winning line of argument -- contrast Bardic Inspiration with the text for the Divination Wizard's Portent ability:

"You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with one of these foretelling rolls." (emphasis mine)

Who say's I'm trying to "win" something? I honestly don't like the class (archetype) enough to ever play it again so it's not like I'm invested one way or another.

However, since the subject has been renewed,I will acknowledge that what we have are examples of what clear language looks like when something is exclusionary (Bardic Inspiration). And what clear language looks like when something is inclusionary (Wizard's Portent.) And neither looks like the syntax in Bend Luck.

So, contrary to what some are advocating, it is simply not consistent with language used elsewhere in the rules, nor are various interpretations incontrovertible.

 

[Dausuul]

Who say's I'm trying to "win" something? I honestly don't like the class (archetype) enough to ever play it again so it's not like I'm invested one way or another.

However, since the subject has been renewed,I will acknowledge that what we have are examples of what clear language looks like when something is exclusionary (Bardic Inspiration). And what clear language looks like when something is inclusionary (Wizard's Portent.) And neither looks like the syntax in Bend Luck.

So, contrary to what some are advocating, it is simply not consistent with language used elsewhere in the rules, nor are various interpretations incontrovertible.

"Another creature" is not the least bit ambiguous. It's possible the designers goofed and intended to write "a creature," but we have zero evidence of that. All we have is what they actually did write, and what they did write quite specifically excludes the caster as a potential target.